BF2S Forums Palestinian terror attacks. Maybe they bring it on themselves?

Dilbert_X wrote:

1. Where did you get the other details? Those weren't in any of the links provided.

Duh, they were in the passage already quoted previously.

From the notoriously anti-semitic Time Newspaper

Sorry. I missed those in the wall of text posts.

Who called anyone anti-semitic?

Dilbert_X wrote:

So refuting others' findings makes one arrogant? I'd say blindly accepting things simply because you like what they say is worse.

Saying all human rights groups are biased is pretty incredible realistic.

Fixed.

Of course they're biased. To not realize that every group has its own biases that reflect its own reporting is naive.

Dilbert_X wrote:

All members of the US military are biased, if they didn't exaggerate foreign aggression they'd all be out of a job - now we're even.

Again...wasn't talking to you. So how are you and I even when you're responding to something that wasn't directed at you?

And your logic is--yet again--flawed. If there were no foreign aggression, there would still be a need for the US (or any other country's) military. You're just trying too hard to be sarcastic.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'm not at all unfamiliar with European news on the subject...how the hell do you think I came to the position that Euros have taken a side?

We haven't particularly taken a side, we think both sides are involved in terrorism, they are fighting equally dirty. The Israelis are the aggressors in the situation and steps need to be taken for the situation to be resolved. With the US backing Israel without question its impossible to make progress.

So that's why the two sides wouldn't talk without US involvement?

Your argument would make much more sense if Europe did...I don't know...ANYTHING about trying to resolve the problem.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Just as I don't think the average Palestinian is some kind of animal. Their leadership, on the other hand...

I do think the Israeli leadership are animals, multiple politicians, PMs etc former terrorists, and we can discuss Sharon if you like.

The difference is that you don't limit your "animal" comparisons to the leadership...you apply it to the people as well.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Again, what planet do you live on? Since when do armies hold trials to determine what their next target is?

Murder and terrorism are criminal matters, or they should be brought before tribunals, even the US has figured this out - although Gitmo is clearly a farce.

If you're not in a combat situation, you're correct. However, since both sides seem to think they are in a combat situation, it makes your argument less valid (if that's even possible).

Dilbert_X wrote:

One side's violations do not justify the other side's violations. "They did it first" is not an adequate argument in these types of situations.

Not really, but thats the situation. Its not reasonable for one side to wage a war of aggression through illegal means and then say, 'we won, now you guys have to abide by conventions which we never did and don't plan to in the future.'
Might as well punch someone in the face and say - you can't punch me, assault is illegal!

Don't know if you've noticed, but there's a ceasefire. Only one side has honored that ceasefire...wonder which side that is? I'll give you a hint: It's the side that doesn't rhyme with "Palestinian".

So, if Israel is honoring the ceasefire, just what "war of aggression" is going on right now?

Dilbert_X wrote:

As such, I am a legitimate target under international laws--even when I am sitting at home watching cartoons.

I see, so you'd have no issue with having a 1,000kg bomb dropped on you, your family, your neighbours and any passersby in the street because some guy 5,000km away has determined, in secret, using evidence you're not privy to, according to the laws and standards of his country - not yours, that you were involved in planning an operation which lead to the deaths of some civilians in his country?

The average bomb used by Israel has been the 500lb LGB, not a 1000kg bomb. Or a Hellfire missile.

It's called targeting, and if I were an active combatant engaged against them, I wouldn't be putting my family at risk by staying in the same house as them. If they want to drop the bomb on where I would be staying (away from my family and other innocent civilians), they can have a nut.

See the difference there?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Can't believe it took you this long to bring out the insults. You've shown rare restraint...it looks like the little boy is starting to grow up.

You're clearly forgetting the 'nitwit' thing.

No, I'm not forgetting it. The difference is you ARE a nitwit. I DON'T wear a jog bra.

Bertster7 wrote:

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

No more than you are.

Bertster7 wrote:

You really seem to have trouble grasping the fact that any of the terror attacks you condemn so swiftly from the Palestinians are exactly the same thing the Israelis did when they reached Palestine, many of them as illegal immigrants.

And there has been 60 years since. I'm not at all excusing Israeli terrorism against Palestinians in the British Mandate.

However, you really seem to have trouble grasping the fact that Israel is a country. Internationally recognized with a seat at the UN. It's not going away, regardless of how it came into being. Now its civilians are being attacked by militants who say that their end goal is the elimination of said country.

Bertster7 wrote:

How would you feel if one massive group of immigrants, lets say the Chinese, since there are loads of them, illegally immigrated to the US (I know the analogy is flawed since the chances of this happening there in the foreseeable future are next to non-existent, due to the economic and military strength of the US - but lets pretend for a moment your own country is not in such a stable state) and then, through a sustained campaign of terror (bombings, murders, kidnappings) they drove most Americans from their homes, targeted UN peacekeeping troops there deliberately and took 80% of the country for themselves and continued to gradually expand the area they had taken.

This is what happened to the Palestinians. That is absolute fact. I can prove all of that absolutely with no difficulty. If you'd be happy to just sit back and take it, rather trying to reclaim your country, then fair enough - but if you would feel justified in trying to reclaim your country through violence and terror, just as it was taken from you - then you should think again about what the situation actually is in Palestine.

Did it happen 60 years ago? Did the Chinese (there were massive waves of Chinese immigrants in the US, BTW) establish a country that was then internationally recognized and given a seat at the UN?

Again, I'm not defending the origins of the country of Israel or the terrorist acts associated with it. I'm talking about the situation TODAY, and the tactics employed by both sides TODAY in their military operations.

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Dictionary definitions are what words mean. If you want to make up your own meanings that no one else understands because they are not standardised, then that's just silly. I can understand you getting it wrong, that's perfectly normal. But to get it wrong and then persist in saying your interpretation of it is correct, shows a counter-productive level of wilful ignorance - it only takes a few seconds to check a definition.

Europe doesn't take one side over the other. That's what the US does. The fact that you believe they do demonstrates clearly that you are extremely unfamiliar with European news on the subject.

I suppose you've never heard of colloquialisms? Perhaps you should look it up.

You knew exactly what I meant. I was using a relational definition as opposed to the textbook definition. That's actually perfectly acceptable...except, it appears, when it counters your argument.

Europe doesn't take one side over the other? Really? Then what's with the Euro = Pal/Hamas supporter to the exclusion of all others paradigm on this forum? It certainly appears that you, as a Euro (and others, as Euros) are doing the exact thing you claim the US does.

I'm not at all unfamiliar with European news on the subject...how the hell do you think I came to the position that Euros have taken a side?

Acceptable to whom? By the way, you're not using the word colloquialism properly either, that's not what it means (for a start colloquial is a word applied purely to speech, we are writing here, in case you hadn't noticed - as for relational definitions, I've certainly never heard of them being used linguistically, just in databases - I put it to you that there is no such thing, and even if there were it would most certainly not be applicable in this case).

/facefuckingpalm

Colloquialisms can apply to the written as well as the spoken word. A relational definition is (loosely) defining a word or phrase by relating it to another word/phrase/concept. By showing the relationship between the two, you show the intended definition of the word/phrase.

Unless you are an English professor, kindly STFU about this.

Bertster7 wrote:

If you really do think that, after seeing European news on the subject, Europe takes the side of the Palestinians and Hamas, then you are a fool. No two ways about it. You have clearly been so heavily influenced by the prevailing cultural bias in your society that you can't be expected to understand the situation in the slightest.

You're right. I only watch BBC, Sky, CNN International, and German or French news when I'm there. I read BBC online, Times Online, and other such European news. In addition to all the lovely links you Euros provide here, along with your individual spins on the stories. As I said before, if the Euros who post here are a legitimate sampling of European views on the subject, sides are clearly being taken. I don't have a problem with you taking sides...I have a problem with you clearly taking sides and then claiming not to.

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

I don't side with the ME view. I have my own opinions which are quite different to the ME view, the European view and the US view. My views on this issue are consistent with my views on pretty much all conflicts. I don't side with the aggressor. Israel was the aggressor in this case and not only that, but the beginnings of their campaign were extremely slimy and insidious. If Israel were to take the moral high ground and actually take measures to sort this mess out, which so far they have failed to do, since they have no interest in giving things up for the Palestinian people who they have taken everything from (instead they continue to break international law and the UDHR on a daily basis, by preventing Palestinians access to Israel and by continuing to build illegal settlements in the West Bank and Gaza), then I would re-evaluate my assessment of them. Until they take some responsibility for the suffering their actions have caused, then my opinion of them will remain unchanged.

You side with Hamas and Hezbollah. The ME sides with Hamas and Hezbollah. Put whatever lipstick you want on that pig...it's still the same pig.

Wow. With that level of subtlety, I'm surprised you're not in politics.

Is it inaccurate? Based on the content of your posts, it's spot on.

Berster7 wrote:

You've written a lot of responses, but sadly none of them have had anything to say, certainly nothing of substance. You haven't presented any reasoning for any of your assertions and just claim things are so because you say so. Try actually presenting some sort of structured argument in one of your responses.

Just how is that? Pot. Kettle. Black.

I have repeatedly said that I support the plight of the Palestinian people. What I do not support are the methods their leadership chooses to employ on their behalf, as they are criminal and entirely unsuccessful. The fact that Hamas continues to employ methods that intentionally kill innocent civilians, even though they know they are not going to succeed in gaining their ultimate goal, speaks entirely to the character (or lack therof) of Hamas. The fact that you support them in these efforts is utterly sickening.

Maybe pointing that out hit too close to home? Having your double-standards pointed out too hurtful?

The bulk of your posts has boiled down to: Israel shouldn't exist, so anything that happens to the Israeli people is OK. You disagree with the method of the country's founding (I'm not a particular fan, either, BTW), so somehow that makes it OK--sixty years and international recognition later--for Hamas to employ the same tactics that you decried Israel using.

The reasoning presented (even if you don't agree with it, it is there) is often the same reasoning you use in your arguments, just turned around. And you don't like it. You claim there is no reasoning, but it's yours. What does that say about your own "reasoning"?

Man up, Nancy. It's DEBATE and serious talk. If you can't handle the debate, stay out of the forum.

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

FAO: FEOS

You can't just dismiss ALL human rights groups and watchdogs as biased, to do that would show your own unquestioning bias towards people like Israel, who often find themselves in the dock with these groups. Sure, some of these groups are biased but a lot of these groups are the same groups that criticize the likes of China, Darfur, Saudi Arabia and Cuba and they never seem to get second-guessed when the focus is on these countries.

Unlike a political or financial group that might have very obvious ulterior motives a human rights group's raison d'etre is to uncover and report violations of human rights, there would be far less to gain for these kinds of groups to follow any kind of specific agenda. I mean what would be gained by accusing someone falsely of human rights violations? All you would be doing is shifting the focus from real abusers onto those that don't deserve focus.

If you can identify situations where funding is coming from a source who could benefit from accusations against the parties in question then fair enough your point is entirely valid but beyond that your theory is inherently flawed.

It's not about funding Braddock, it's about agenda.

I view those groups as no more or less biased than the media. They each have their own agendas, which bias their reporting. All groups do. That's why I don't accept ANY group's report at face value.

I never said there wasn't truth in what they report. In fact, I said the exact opposite.

Agenda in what sense? If money is not coming into the equation then what do they have to gain by falsely accusing people of violating human rights? It is hard enough in today's apathetic world to generate interest and concern over even the most serious human rights abuses, to attempt to apply focus on a region without any real reason to do so would be counter productive in the quest to actually protect human rights.

At least you are admitting their is truth to what they report.

Braddock wrote:

Agenda in what sense? If money is not coming into the equation then what do they have to gain by falsely accusing people of violating human rights? It is hard enough in today's apathetic world to generate interest and concern over even the most serious human rights abuses, to attempt to apply focus on a region without any real reason to do so would be counter productive in the quest to actually protect human rights.

Because if they don't find something to report, then people will think they aren't doing their jobs or are useless. And perhaps funding does play a part because if their regular donors think they aren't doing their jobs "well enough", then they just won't donate to them any longer.

Braddock wrote:

At least you are admitting their is truth to what they report.

Not a new revelation.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Sorry. I missed those in the wall of text posts.

Right so its our fault, the great Mekon-like FEOS, the human dictionary, failed to spot something under his nose and accused me of not providing chapter and verse. Sorry, I brought it on myself writing replies to your wall of text posts.

Did I say anything was your fault, Alice?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Of course they're biased. To not realize that every group has its own biases that reflect its own reporting is naive.

Everyone is biased, to say they are claiming the Israelis are abusing human rights solely to keep themselves in jobs is ridiculous. Independent groups have only their reputations. If they make fools of themselves claiming things which aren't true THEN they are likely to be out of jobs.

They also have donors who expect them to find human rights abuses. The funny thing about many of their claims is they can't be proven or disproven...it's all in interpretation of the facts. They will always interpret the facts as HR abuses if at all possible. The other side will do the opposite. Then it's a matter of what the audience's default position is. For example, you would default to human rights abuses occurring without concrete proof. I would default to them not occurring without concrete proof. That whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing that you so selectively apply.

I'm certainly not saying that is the situation in all cases, however. Many times, it is abundantly clear and there is independent, corroborating evidence. These groups serve a purpose, but they are not without agenda or bias.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If there were no foreign aggression, there would still be a need for the US (or any other country's) military. You're just trying too hard to be sarcastic.

No I'm just demonstrating how weak your argument is, thank you for proving my point. See what I did there?

Yeah...I see that you did nothing there, because it doesn't prove your point at all. But nice try.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Your argument would make much more sense if Europe did...I don't know...ANYTHING about trying to resolve the problem.

There is little point, when the US arms, funds, protects in the UNSC and fights wars on behalf of one of the parties.
However as pointed out previously the only efforts to resolve the problem, the Oslo talks, were carried out with zero US involvement until it was pretty well done and dusted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords

And again with the whole "US supports Israel so no one can do anything else" whine. Last time I checked, there were other permanent members of the UNSC who are from Europe. Last time I checked, it was possible to attempt to resolve the issue outside the UN. Last time I checked, the UN wasn't the be-all end-all of world politics. But it certainly makes it easier to just blame the US, doesn't it? That way, your countries don't have to do anything...they can just wring their hands and cry.

That's the "only previous efforts"? You really need to read more. This time, try to read things that don't just support your argument. You might learn something.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The difference is that you don't limit your "animal" comparisons to the leadership...you apply it to the people as well.

For example? You're the one who started up about animals.

Individual IDF soldiers, for example. The IDF as a whole, for example. Israeli settlers, for example.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Don't know if you've noticed, but there's a ceasefire. Only one side has honored that ceasefire...wonder which side that is? I'll give you a hint: It's the side that doesn't rhyme with "Palestinian".

The Prime Minister of Israel is on the record saying the ceasefire has held.

On Israel's part. Hamas launching rockets out of Gaza into Israel isn't exactly keeping with the spirit of the ceasefire, now is it?

Dilbert_X wrote:

I were an active combatant engaged against them, I wouldn't be putting my family at risk by staying in the same house as them.

Tell us FEOS, did you move away from home during the Iraq invasion? Or send your family to the hills?

I wasn't with my family during the Iraq invasion. Even if I were, they weren't at risk from Iraqi attack, now were they?

Got anything else, brainiac?

Dilbert_X wrote:

The fact that Hamas continues to employ methods that intentionally kill innocent civilians, even though they know they are not going to succeed in gaining their ultimate goal, speaks entirely to the character (or lack therof) of Hamas.

So now you can see into the minds of the Hamas leadership - or are you just making stuff up - again - and drawing illogical and unsupoorted conclusions - again?

Wait a minute, weren't YOU the one who said Hamas has stated it's OK to target civilians? Or were YOU making that up?

Maybe Hamas leadership is really dumb enough not to see that they can't achieve their stated objectives through their current strategy. I was giving them benefit of the doubt for not being complete morons. Maybe that was a step too far.

Dilbert_X wrote:

No, I'm not forgetting it. The difference is you ARE a nitwit.

The difference is it was you who started up with the personal insults, again, not me.
And I bet if you don't wear a jogging bra its not because you don't need one.

Sorry. I keep forgetting your skin is about as thick as Saran Wrap.

Why are you focused on my chest? Just jealous because you can't do a single push up without gasping for air and reaching for the M&Ms?

I call bullshit. It was obviously a calculated 'GTFO' to the UN.

You give us an example, in modern times with instant communication, battlefield surveillance, GPS location etc, of a modern army repeatedly bombing a single position occupied by their their own side, or a neutral party whose position they knew before battle commenced, who they are in constant communication with, over a period of six hours or greater.

I can't think of one, every FF event I can think of has been a single event very quickly recognised and steps taken within minutes to mitigate.

Come to think of it why don't you give us an example of an IDF on IDF FF incident? Show us when the IDF bombed their own troops repeatedly for hours and maybe you'll have a point.
I'm not aware of any IDF FF incidents - they are an efficient army - I'll give them that.

In the meantime I'll research the exact details of who communicated what to whom and when.

Just jealous because you can't do a single push up without gasping for air and reaching for the M&Ms?

Actually my record is 150 straight off, my shoulder joints can't take it any more, and it was a while ago admittedly.
And I guess you mean Smarties.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-08-18 03:04:40)

Lets see, those who actually have the evidence at their fingertips.
'Irish Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern said "Evidence that we have would suggest that this was either an incredible accident or else was in some
way directly targeted".

'Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, said "I am shocked and deeply distressed by the apparently deliberate targeting by Israeli Defense Forces of a United Nations observer post in southern Lebanon that has killed two United Nations military observers, with two more feared dead."
"This coordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long established and clearly marked U.N. post at Khiyam occurred despite personal assurances given to me by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that U.N. positions would be spared Israeli fire."

Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja  "These so called precision attacks seem to be hitting everyone except Hezbollah, there have been hundreds of civilians, international workers and others killed already and it does not seem that by these means a military solution could be achieved."

Austrian foreign minister Ursula Plassnik said "Such an attack on unarmed UN observers is entirely unacceptable and can in no way be justified"

But obviously you know better.

The Israelis refused to let the UN question the commanders involved.
'UN Patrol Base at Khiam was struck by a 500 kilogram precision-guided aerial bomb and destroyed at 1925 hours on 25 July 2006.  The Board of Inquiry notes that the Israeli authorities have accepted full responsibility for the incident and apologized to the United Nations for what they say was an “operational level” mistake.  The Board did not have access to operational or tactical level IDF commanders involved in the incident, and was, therefore, unable to determine why the attacks on the UN position were not halted, despite repeated demarches to the Israeli authorities from UN personnel, both in the field and at Headquarters.'
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/ … 66.doc.htm

So the Israelis repeatedly attack a UN base and refuse to allow the UN to question those involved.

Again, if this kind of incident is common in the 'fog of war' please provide an example or two which bears even some tiny similarity.

in most (if not all) of those, the comm chain was much, much shorter...allowing for near immediate cease-fire calls from those authorized to make them.

But its hard to believe the IDF communication chain is six hours long.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-08-20 06:18:47)

FEOS wrote:

I'm just falling back on the "innocent until proven guilty" thing that you conveniently ignore when it supports your preconceptions.

A lot of Israel supporters (I'm not saying you in particular by the way) don't seem too concerned about the innocent until proven guilty philosophy whenever there is an Israeli strike on a Palestinian area, they will argue the possible explanations of an incident in a way that leans towards Palestinian guilt whereas if the Israeli security forces are in the dock for something they will argue the possible explanations of an incident in a way that leans towards Israeli innocence.

Even you yourself have bent over backwards to defend the Israelis in this thread over their attack on the UN observers, pardon me but you don't seem to put in as much effort to defend Palestinians when there is doubt over an attack involving them.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'm just falling back on the "innocent until proven guilty" thing that you conveniently ignore when it supports your preconceptions.

Do you mean innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers on the basis of evidence presented in open court?
Innocent unless the Israelis say you're guilty on the basis of secret evidence and then summarily execute you with a 1,000kg bomb?
Innocent until you're tortured into giving false evidence implicating yourself and others?
Innocent until you're tortured to death because some redneck want to have some fun?
Innocent until you've been imprisoned for five years and will say anything to get out?
Innocent until someone wilfully distorts intel on WMD, chooses not to allow the relevant court to weigh it and decides to invade your country?

Just wondering which version of innocent until proven guilty you're using today.

You are confusing a military action (the second scenario above) with criminal action.

You are accusing the IDF of criminal action here. There must be evidence from an investigation to prove they committed a crime (willfully targeted the UN position) before I'm going to buy it. The burden of proof is on the accuser...that burden has not been met by any measure.

It's just like every other scenario you list up there: No proof that criminal activity has occurred, but you choose to pronounce them guilty of criminal activity simply because you don't like which side they're on. You demand equal application, so long as you get to determine what "equal" means.

In that regard, you are no better than those whom you're castigating with your scenarios above. I won't even address the silliness of some of the scenarios...that's just pointless.

Dilbert_X wrote:

And that's an extreme simplification.

A Lt-Col in the Irish army contacted his appointed liaison officer in the IDF six times over a period of six hours.
Its up to the IDF to have a chain of command. If they appoint a liaison officer he should have a clue about how to do his job.
If they decline to allow any evidence to be examined or anyone questioned then they are open to accusations.

Source?

That tidbit changes nothing, tbh. Your assumption that the IDF LO doesn't have a clue how to do his job is utterly without merit, particularly since you still haven't provided any information from any investigations into the incident.

Obviously errors were made--people should lose their jobs over it, maybe even be prosecuted for negligence if there is evidence of it.

Accusations are one thing. Pronouncing their guilt without evidence is something else entirely....which is what you've done. There is no proof offered that anything was intentional, yet you choose to say it was because you don't like the IDF (or Israel in general).

Dilbert_X wrote:

I won't even address the silliness of some of the scenarios...that's just pointless.

Wassamatter? Don't like a mirror being held up to you?

It's no mirror. Your scenarios were ridiculous, fictional, and not at all related to the discussion at hand. That's "wassamatter".

But I see you didn't address the real point that was made.

Dilbert_X wrote:

That tidbit changes nothing

Yes it does, there was no convoluted communication path through Washington, people on the ground were talking to each other directly.

No, they weren't--at least not according to the information provided thus far.

It reduces the complexity somewhat. It does not eliminate it. The point you refuse to grasp is that there was no one on site talking with IDF weapons controllers who could shut down the operations. The fact that they had an IDF LNO doesn't reduce the amount of coordination that would have to occur just within the IDF to turn off the missions involved.

You are operating under the misconception that the only thing that was going on was the missions that hit that outpost. Those were a small part of the overall synchronized effort. We don't know if those missions were pre-planned or ad hoc. We don't know what kind of ROE the shooters and commanders were operating under. The point being there are far too many unknowns which would impact the timeliness of response.

Could it have been prevented? Of course it could have...nearly every accident is found to be preventable, once investigated.

Is there evidence that it was intentional? Not so far.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Still we know your answer, if they're Arabs they're guilty if the Israelis say so, no second-guessing allowed.

But don't you say every time the Israeli's hit a civilian area and there's collateral damage, they did it on purpose no questions asked? An are simply using a rocket site as a cover up for their genocidal aims?

You imply that the bombing occurred non-stop over a period of six hours.

I never said non-stop, it did occur over a period of six hours.
I reckon if I phoned any Israeli embassy in the world and gave them GPS coordinates of four Israelis who were in a building in Lebanon which was being hit by artillery - within an hour it would stop. I doubt it would take as long as an hour. I can bet it wouldn't still be being hit six hours later.

And the Israelis use 2000lb bombs, not 1000kg (2200lb) bombs in that class.

Now you're just being petty.

Because you're the one making the accusation, brainiac. The burden of proof is on the accuser.

Yawn, no, the burden of proof is on the Israelis to prove the people they are bombing are terrorists. As its all done in secret there is no proof, except you still seem willing to swallow it on their say-so.

I have repeatedly said that I don't necessarily agree with all IDF responses.

But you seem to agree with most of them, and the general principle of bombing civilian areas to try to kill suspected militants and suspected militia infrastructure.
So far you have twisted and turned, bent over forwards and backwards to justify their actions, even justifying cluster-bombing during the Lebanon War, and saying any human rights organisation which criticises Israel is 'biased'.
When it comes to the Palestinians or Arabs in general they are guilty until proven otherwise, and normal laws don't therefore apply so they can be treated however the Israelis or Americans see fit.
Interesting which side you pick considering the Palestinians have been grievously wronged and the Israelis are the aggressors here.

They aren't subject to US criminal law and they have intentionally removed themselves from GC protected status due to their actions.

You're only a terrorist or 'unlawful combatant' when its proven 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
Their 'actions' are alleged actions until proven in a court of law, not cut out with a razor blade.
Until they are proven to be terrorists or whatever they are afforded the same rights as everyone else, under any set of laws you care to pick.

That doesn't mean that I agree that they are intentionally targeting and killing civilians

But you must admit they seem to kill a hell of a lot considering they claim not to target civilians. You'd think they would re-evaluate their approach given they have killed 943 children in the past 5 years. Otherwise we are free to criticise them for killing civilians, same as Hamas.

"wilfully[sic]"

You're thinking of the incorrect American spelling. My version is correct.
If you're going to be a grammar-nazi suggest you learn English first.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-08-25 03:21:20)